document_title: The Little Mermaid (1989 film)

question_text: who played prince eric in the little mermaid

text: The Little Mermaid (1989 film)

text: Plot

text: Ariel, a sixteen-year-old mermaid princess, is dissatisfied with underwater life in the kingdom of Atlantica, and is curious about the human world. With her best friend Flounder, Ariel collects human artifacts in her grotto, and often goes to the surface of the ocean to visit Scuttle, a seagull who offers very inaccurate knowledge of human culture. She ignores the warnings of her father King Triton, the ruler of Atlantica, and Sebastian, a crab who serves as Triton's adviser and court composer, that contact between merpeople and humans is forbidden.

text: One night, Ariel, Flounder, and Sebastian travel to the ocean surface to watch a celebration for the birthday of Prince Eric on a ship. Ariel instantly becomes enamored with Eric. A violent storm arrives, with a bolt of lightning striking the ship, engulfing it in flames and eventually destroying it, tossing Eric overboard. She rescues Eric and brings him to shore. Ariel sings to Eric, but immediately leaves just as he regains consciousness to avoid being discovered. Fascinated by the memory of her voice, Eric vows to find who saved and sang to him, and Ariel vows to find a way to join him and his world. When Triton discovers Ariel's love for Eric, Triton confronts her in the grotto and destroys most of the artifacts with his trident. After Triton leaves, two eels named Flotsam and Jetsam convince Ariel to visit Ursula, a sea witch.

text: Ursula tricks Ariel into making a deal to transform her into a human for three days in exchange for Ariel's voice, which Ursula puts in a nautilus shell. Within these three days, Ariel must receive the "kiss of true love" from Eric. If Ariel gets Eric to kiss her, she will remain a human permanently. Otherwise, she will transform back into a mermaid and be captured by Ursula. Ariel accepts, and is given human legs to emerge to the land above. Eric finds Ariel on the beach and takes her to his castle, unaware that she is the one who had rescued him earlier. Ariel spends time with Eric, and at the end of the second day, they almost kiss, but are disrupted by Flotsam and Jetsam. Furious at their narrow escape, Ursula sets a trap for Eric and Ariel: she disguises herself as a beautiful young woman named Vanessa and hypnotizes Eric with her singing voice.

text: Discovering that Vanessa is actually Ursula in disguise, Scuttle informs Ariel of Ursula's plan to marry Eric while Sebastian informs Triton about Ursula's actions. Assisted by her friends, Ariel stops Eric's wedding to Ursula, destroying the nautilus shell around Ursula's neck and restoring Ariel's voice. Realizing that Ariel is the girl who saved his life, Eric rushes to kiss her, but the sun sets, and Ariel transforms back into a mermaid before Ursula kidnaps her. Triton furiously confronts Ursula and demands Ariel's release, but the deal is inviolable. Ursula tricks Triton into taking Ariel's place as Ursula's prisoner, giving up his trident. Ariel is released as Triton is transformed into a polyp. Ursula steps forward as the new queen, but before she can use the trident, Eric intervenes with a harpoon. Ursula attempts to attack Eric, but inadvertently kills Flotsam and Jetsam in the process. Enraged, Ursula uses the trident to expand into monstrous proportions.

text: Ariel and Eric reunite on the surface before Ursula gains full control of the entire ocean, creating a storm and bringing sunken ships to the surface. In her attempt to murder Ariel, Ursula herself is impaled on one of the wrecked ships piloted by Eric. With Ursula slain, Triton and the other polyps are restored to their original forms. Realizing that Ariel truly loves Eric, Triton willingly changes her from a mermaid into a human and approves her marriage to Eric. Ariel and Eric marry on a ship and depart.

text: Cast

text:
Jodi Benson as Princess Ariel[12]
Christopher Daniel Barnes as Prince Eric[13]
Pat Carroll as Ursula[13]

text: Jodi Benson as Vanessa (Ursula's human alter-ego)

text:
Samuel E. Wright as Sebastian[13]
Jason Marin as Flounder[13]
Kenneth Mars as King Triton[13]
Buddy Hackett as Scuttle[13]
Ben Wright as Grimsby[13]
Paddi Edwards as Flotsam and Jetsam[13]
Edie McClurg as Carlotta the maid[13]
Kimmy Robertson and Caroline Vasicek as Ariel's Sisters[13]
Will Ryan as Harold the Seahorse[13]
Frank Welker as Max the Sheepdog[13]
René Auberjonois as Chef Louis[13]

text: Production

text: Story development

text: The Little Mermaid was originally planned as part of one of Walt Disney's earliest feature films, a proposed package film featuring vignettes of Hans Christian Andersen tales.[14] Development started soon after Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in the late 1930s, but was delayed due to various circumstances.[15]

text: In 1985, Ron Clements became interested in a film adaptation of The Little Mermaid while he was serving as a director on The Great Mouse Detective (1986) alongside John Musker.[16] Clements discovered the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale while browsing through a bookstore.[17] Believing the story provided an "ideal basis" for an animated feature film and keen on creating a film that took place underwater,[16] Clements wrote and presented a two-page treatment of Mermaid to Disney CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg at a "gong show" idea suggestion meeting. Katzenberg passed the project over, because at that time the studio was in development on a sequel to their live-action mermaid comedy Splash (1984) and felt The Little Mermaid would be too similar a project.[17] The next day, however, Katzenberg approved of the idea for possible development, along with Oliver & Company. While in production in the 1980s, the staff found, by chance, original story and visual development work done by Kay Nielsen for Disney's proposed 1930s Andersen feature.[14] Many of the changes made by the staff in the 1930s to Hans Christian Andersen's original story were coincidentally the same as the changes made by Disney writers in the 1980s.[17]

text: That year Clements and Musker expanded the two-page idea into a 20-page rough script, eliminating the role of the mermaid's grandmother and expanding the roles of the Merman King and the sea witch. However, the film's plans were momentarily shelved as Disney focused its attention on Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Oliver & Company as more immediate releases.[17] In 1987, songwriter Howard Ashman became involved with the writing and development of Mermaid after he was asked to contribute a song to Oliver & Company. He proposed changing the minor character Clarence, the English-butler crab, to a Jamaican crab and shifting the music style throughout the film to reflect this. At the same time, Katzenberg, Clements, Musker, and Ashman revised the story format to make Mermaid a musical with a Broadway-style story structure, with the song sequences serving as the tentpoles of the film.[14] Ashman and composer Alan Menken, both noted for their work as the writers of the successful Off-Broadway stage musical Little Shop of Horrors, teamed up to compose the entire song score. In 1988, with Oliver out of the way, Mermaid was slated as the next major Disney release.[18]

text: Animation

text: More money and resources were dedicated to Mermaid than any other Disney animated film in decades.[14] Aside from its main animation facility in Glendale, California, Disney opened a satellite feature animation facility during the production of Mermaid in Lake Buena Vista, Florida (near Orlando, Florida), within Disney-MGM Studios Theme Park at Walt Disney World.[19] Opening in 1989, the Disney-MGM facility's first projects were to produce an entire Roger Rabbit cartoon short, Roller Coaster Rabbit, and to contribute ink and paint support to Mermaid.[19] Another first for recent years was the filming of live actors and actresses for motion reference material for the animators, a practice used frequently for many of the Disney animated features produced under Walt Disney's supervision. Sherri Lynn Stoner, a former member of Los Angeles' Groundlings improvisation comedy group, and Joshua Finkel, a Broadway actor, performed key scenes as Ariel and Eric respectively.[17][20] Jodi Benson had already been cast as Ariel's voice actor by this time, and her recorded dialogue was used as playback to guide these live-action references.[20]

text: Mermaid's supervising animators included Glen Keane and Mark Henn on Ariel, Duncan Marjoribanks on Sebastian, Andreas Deja on King Triton, and Ruben Aquino on Ursula.[14] Originally, Keane had been asked to work on Ursula, as he had established a reputation for drawing large, powerful figures, such as the bear in The Fox and the Hound (1981) and Professor Ratigan in The Great Mouse Detective (1986). Keane, however, was assigned as one of the two lead artists on the petite Ariel and oversaw the "Part of Your World" musical number. He jokingly stated that his wife looks exactly like Ariel "without the fins."[21] The character's body type and personality were based upon that of Alyssa Milano, then starring on TV's Who's the Boss? and the effect of her hair underwater was based on both footage of Sally Ride when she was in space,[14] and scenes of Stoner in a pool for guidance in animating Ariel's swimming.[22]

text: The design of the villainous Ursula was based upon drag performer Divine.[14] An additional early inspiration before Divine was Joan Collins in her role as Alexis Carrington in the television show Dynasty, due to a suggestion from Howard Ashman, who was a fan of the series.[23] Pat Carroll was not Clements and Musker's first choice to voice Ursula; the original script had been written with Bea Arthur of the Disney-owned TV series The Golden Girls in mind. After Arthur turned the part down, actresses such as Nancy Marchand, Nancy Wilson, Roseanne, Charlotte Rae, and Elaine Stritch were considered for the part.[24] Stritch was eventually cast as Ursula, but clashed with Howard Ashman's style of music production and was replaced by Carroll.[24] Various actors auditioned for additional roles in the film, including Jim Carrey for the role of Prince Eric, and comedians Bill Maher and Michael Richards for the role of Scuttle.[23]

text: The underwater setting required the most special effects animation for a Disney animated feature since Fantasia in 1940. Effects animation supervisor Mark Dindal estimated that over a million bubbles were drawn for this film, in addition to the use of other processes such as airbrushing, backlighting, superimposition, and some computer animation. The artistic manpower needed for Mermaid required Disney to farm out most of the underwater bubble effects animation in the film to Pacific Rim Productions, a China-based firm with production facilities in Beijing.[14] An attempt to use Disney's famed multiplane camera for the first time in years for quality "depth" shots failed because the machine was reputedly in dilapidated condition. The multiplane shots were instead photographed at an outside animation camera facility.[14]

text: The Little Mermaid was the last Disney feature film to use the traditional hand-painted cel method of animation. Disney's next film, The Rescuers Down Under, used a digital method of coloring and combining scanned drawings developed for Disney by Pixar called CAPS (Computer Animation Production System), which would eliminate the need for cels, the multiplane camera, and many of the optical effects used for the last time in Mermaid. A CAPS prototype was used experimentally on a few scenes in Mermaid, and one shot produced using CAPS—the penultimate shot in the film, of Ariel and Eric's wedding ship sailing away under a rainbow—appears in the finished film. Computer-generated imagery was used to create some of the wrecked ships in the final battle, a staircase behind a shot of Ariel in Eric's castle, and the carriage Eric and Ariel are riding in when she bounces it over a ravine. These objects were animated using 3D wireframe models, which were plotted as line art to cels and painted traditionally.[14]

text: Music

text: The Little Mermaid was considered by some as "the film that brought Broadway into cartoons".[25] Alan Menken wrote the Academy Award winning score, and collaborated with Howard Ashman on the songs. One of the film's most prominent songs, "Part of Your World", was nearly cut from the film when it seemingly tested poorly with an audience of school children, who became rowdy during the scene. This caused Jeffrey Katzenberg to feel that the song needed to be cut, an idea that was resisted by Musker, Clements, and Keane. Both Muscker and Clements cited the similar situation of the popular song "Over the Rainbow" nearly being cut from 1939's The Wizard of Oz when appealing to Katzenberg. Keane pushed for the song to remain until the film was in a more finalized state. During a second test screening, the scene, now colorized and further developed, tested well with a separate child audience, and the musical number was kept.[23]

text: Release

text: The film was originally released on November 17, 1989, followed by a November 14, 1997, reissue. After the success of the 3D re-release of The Lion King, Disney announced a 3D re-release of The Little Mermaid scheduled for September 13, 2013,[26] but this was cancelled on January 14, 2013, due to the under-performances of other Disney 3D re-releases.[27] The 3D version was released on Blu-ray instead,[28][29] but it did play a limited engagement at the El Capitan Theatre from September to October 2013.[30] On September 20, 2013, The Little Mermaid began playing in select theaters where audiences could bring iPads and use an app called Second Screen Live.[31] The film was also screened out of competition at the 1990 Cannes Film Festival.[32]

text: Home media

text: In a then atypical and controversial move for a new Disney animated film, The Little Mermaid was released as part of the Walt Disney Classics line of VHS and Laserdisc home video releases in May 1990, six months after the release of the film.[18][33] Before Mermaid, only a select number of Disney's catalog animated films had been released to home video, as the company was afraid of upsetting its profitable practice of theatrically reissuing each film every seven years.[18] Mermaid became that year's top-selling title on home video, with over 10 million units sold (including 7 million in its first month).[34] This success led future Disney films to be released soon after the end of their theatrical runs, rather than delayed for several years.[18]

text: Following Mermaid's 1997 re-release in theaters, a new VHS version was released in March 1998 as part of the Masterpiece Collection and included a bonus music video of Jodi Benson singing "Part of Your World" during the end credits, replacing "Under the Sea" as the end credit song.[35] The VHS sold 13 million units and ranked as the third best-selling video of the year.[36][37]

text: The Little Mermaid was released in a Limited Issue "bare-bones" DVD in 1999, with a standard video transfer.[38] The film was re-released on DVD on October 3, 2006, as part of the Walt Disney Platinum Editions line of classic Walt Disney animated features, including the song "Kiss the Girl" performed by Ashley Tisdale.[39] Deleted scenes and several in-depth documentaries were included, as well as an Academy Award-nominated short film intended for the shelved Fantasia 2006, The Little Match Girl.[40] The DVD sold 1.6 million units on its first day of release,[41] and over 4 million units during its first week, making it the biggest animated DVD debut for October. By year's end, the DVD had sold about 7 million units and was one of the year's top ten selling DVDs.[42] The Platinum Edition DVD was released as part of a "Little Mermaid Trilogy" boxed set on December 16, 2008.[43] The Platinum Edition of the film, along with its sequels, went on moratorium in January 2009. The film was re-released on 3-disc Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy Combo, a 2-disc Blu-ray/DVD combo and 3D Blu-ray on October 1, 2013, as part of the Walt Disney Diamond Editions line.[28][44]

text: Live presentations

text: In June 2016, Disney held special presentations of the film at the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles, entitled The Little Mermaid in Concert. The performances combined a screening of The Little Mermaid with live accompaniment by guest musicians, including Sara Bareilles (who performed as Ariel), Tituss Burgess, Darren Criss, Rebel Wilson and Norm Lewis (who performed as King Triton as a reprisal of his role in the stage adaptation). The four additional songs written for the stage adaptation were also incorporated into the presentation, accompanied by scenes of the film's original concept art. During the third and final performance, Jodi Benson joined the cast in lieu of Bareilles to reprise her original role as Ariel. The final performance also featured special appearances by Brad Kane (the singing voice of the title character of Aladdin) and Susan Egan (who played Belle in the stage adaptation of Beauty and the Beast), who sang songs from their respective films, and a duet of A Whole New World.[45][46]

text: On May 16, 2017, ABC announced that it planned to air a special broadcast of the film, The Wonderful World of Disney: The Little Mermaid Live, on October 3, 2017. The special was to feature a presentation of the film intertwined with live performances of its songs by guest musicians, in a similar fashion to the Hollywood Bowl concerts.[47] However, on August 3, 2017, it was announced that the special was postponed due to budget constraints.[48]

text: Reception

text: Box office

text: Early in the production of The Little Mermaid, Jeffrey Katzenberg cautioned Clements, Musker, and their staff, reminding them that since Mermaid was a "girl's film", it would make less money at the box office than Oliver & Company, which had been Disney's biggest animated box office success in a decade.[17][18] However, by the time the film was closer to completion, Katzenberg was convinced Mermaid would be a hit and the first animated feature to earn more than $100 million and become a "blockbuster" film.[17][18]

text: During its original 1989 theatrical release, Mermaid earned $84.4 million at the North American box office,[3] falling just short of Katzenberg's expectations but earning 64% more than Oliver.[18] The film was theatrically reissued on November 14, 1997, on the same day as Anastasia, a Don Bluth animated feature for Fox Animation Studios. The reissue brought $27.2 million in additional gross. The film also drew $99.8 million in box office earnings outside the United States and Canada between both releases, resulting in a total international box office figure of $211 million.[3]

text: Critical reception

text: The Little Mermaid received largely positive reviews from critics. Review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes reported that the film has a 93% "Certified Fresh" score based on 67 reviews, with an average rating of 8.2/10. The site's consensus reads "The Little Mermaid ushered in a new golden era for Disney animation with warm and charming hand-drawn characters and catchy musical sequences".[49] Roger Ebert, film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, was enthusiastic about the film and wrote that, "The Little Mermaid is a jolly and inventive animated fantasy—a movie that's so creative and so much fun it deserves comparison with the best Disney work of the past." Ebert also commented positively on the character of Ariel, stating, "... Ariel is a fully realized female character who thinks and acts independently, even rebelliously, instead of hanging around passively while the fates decide her destiny."[50] The staff of TV Guide wrote a positive review, praising the film's return to the traditional Disney musical as well as the film's animation. Yet they also wrote that the film is detracted from by the juvenile humor and the human characters' eyes. While still giving a positive review, they stated that the film "can't compare to the real Disney classics (which appealed equally to both kids and adults)."[51] The staff of Variety praised the film for its cast of characters, Ursula in particular, as well as its animation, stating that the animation "proves lush and fluid, augmented by the use of shadow and light as elements like fire, sun and water illuminate the characters." They also praised the musical collaboration between Howard Ashman and Alan Menken "whose songs frequently begin slowly but build in cleverness and intensity."[52]

text: Todd Gilchrist of IGN wrote a positive review of the film, stating that the film is "an almost perfect achievement." Gilchrist also praised how the film revived interest in animation as it was released at a time when interest in animation was at a lull.[53] Hal Hinson of The Washington Post wrote a mixed review of the film, referring to it as a "likably unspectacular adaptation of the Hans Christian Andersen classic." Hinson went on to write that the film is average even at its highest points. He wrote that while there is nothing wrong with the film, it would be difficult for children to identify with Ariel and that the characters seemed bland. Hinson concluded his review saying that the film is "accomplished but uninspiring, The Little Mermaid has enough to please any kid. All that's missing is the magic."[54] Empire gave a positive review of the film, stating that "[The Little Mermaid is] a charmer of a movie, boasting all the ingredients that make a Disney experience something to treasure yet free of all the politically correct, formulaic elements that have bogged down the more recent productions."[55]

text: In April 2008 – almost 20 years after the film's initial release in 1989 – Yahoo! users voted "The Little Mermaid" as No. 14 on the top 30 animated films of all time. Later, when Yahoo! updated the list in June of the same year, the film remained on the list but dropped six slots to end at #20. (Only three other traditionally animated Disney animated films - Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, and The Lion King, respectively - scored above it in the poll even after the update.)[56] In 2011, Richard Corliss of TIME Magazine named it one of "The 25 All-TIME Best Animated Films".[57]

text: The Little Mermaid, Disney's first animated fairy tale since Sleeping Beauty (1959),[17] is an important film in animation history for many reasons. Chief among these are its re-establishment of animation as a profitable venture for The Walt Disney Company, as the company's theme parks, television productions, and live-action features had overshadowed the animated output since the 1950s.[18] Mermaid was the second film, following Oliver & Company, produced after Disney began expanding its animated output following its successful live action/animated film Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and became Disney's first animated major box office and critical hit since The Rescuers in 1977.[18] Walt Disney Feature Animation was further expanded as a result of Mermaid and increasingly successful follow-ups — Beauty and the Beast (1991), Aladdin (1992), and The Lion King (1994). The staff increased from 300 members in 1988 to 2,200 in 1999 spread across three studios in Burbank, California, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, and Montreuil, Seine-Saint-Denis, France.[19]

text: In addition, Mermaid signaled the re-establishment of the musical film format as a standard for Disney animated films. The majority of Disney's most popular animated films from the 1930s on had been musicals, though by the 1970s and 1980s the role of music had been de-emphasized in the films.[17] 1988's Oliver & Company had served as a test of sorts to the success of the musical format before Disney committed to the Broadway-style structure of The Little Mermaid.[17]

text: Accolades

text: In January 1990, The Little Mermaid earned three Academy Award nominations, making it the first Disney animated film to earn an Academy Award nomination since The Rescuers in 1977. The film won two of the awards, for Best Song ("Under the Sea") and Best Score. The film also earned four Golden Globe nominations, including Best Picture—Comedy or Musical, and won the awards for Best Song ("Under the Sea") and Best Score.[58]

text: In addition to the box office and critical success of the film itself, the Mermaid soundtrack album earned two awards at the 33rd Grammy Awards in 1991: the Grammy Award for Best Album for Children and the Grammy Award for Best Score Soundtrack Album for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media.[59] Bolstered by the film's success and the soundtrack's Oscars, Golden Globes and Grammy Awards, was certified double platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America in September 1990 for shipments of two million copies of the soundtrack album, an unheard of feat for an animated film at the time.[60] To date, the soundtrack has been certified six times platinum.[60]

text: The Little Mermaid won two Academy Awards for Best Original Score as well as Best Song for Alan Menken and Howard Ashman's "Under the Sea", sung by Samuel E. Wright in a memorable scene.[61] Another song from the film, "Kiss the Girl", was nominated but lost to "Under the Sea".[61] The film also won two Golden Globes for Best Original Score as well Best Original Song for "Under the Sea". It was also nominated in two other categories, Best Motion Picture and another Best Original Song. Menken and Ashman also won a Grammy Award in 1991 for "Under the Sea."[62]

text: The film is recognized by American Film Institute in these lists:

text:
2002: AFI's 100 Years...100 Passions – Nominated[63]
2003: AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains:

Ursula – Nominated Villain[64]

2004: AFI's 100 Years...100 Songs:

"Under the Sea" – Nominated[65]

2006: AFI's Greatest Movie Musicals – Nominated[66]
2008: AFI's 10 Top 10:

Nominated Animation Film[67]

text: Controversy

text: Controversy arose regarding the artwork for the cover for the Classics VHS cassette when the film was first released on video when close examination of the artwork revealed an oddly shaped structure on the castle, closely resembling a human penis.[68][69] Disney and the cover designer insist it was an accident, resulting from a late night rush job to finish the cover artwork. The questionable object does not appear on the cover of the second releasing of the movie.[68] A second allegation is that a clergyman is seen with an erection during a scene late in the film.[70][71][72] The clergyman is a short man, dressed in Bishop's clothing, and a small bulge is slightly noticeable in a few of the frames that are actually later shown to be the stubby-legged man's knees, but the image is small and is very difficult to distinguish. The combined incidents led an Arkansas woman to file suit against The Walt Disney Company in 1995, though she dropped the suit two months later.[71][72][73][74][75]

text: Sequels and spin-offs

text:
An animated series prequel based on the film premiered in late 1992 on the CBS television network, following Ariel's adventures before the events of the film. The show ran for 31 episodes.
A series of shorts starring Sebastian were aired as part of the Disney animated series Marsupilami.
A direct-to-video sequel titled The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea was released on September 19, 2000. The plot focuses on Ariel's daughter Melody who longs to be a part of the ocean world.
A direct-to-video prequel, titled The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning, was released on August 26, 2008. The story is set before the events of the original film, in which King Triton has banned music from Atlantica.
Ariel, Sebastian, Flounder, King Triton, Ursula, Prince Eric, Scuttle and Chef Louie are "guests" in House of Mouse. Ursula appears as one of the leading villains in Mickey's House of Villains. Ariel, Prince Eric and Ursula also appear in Mickey's Magical Christmas: Snowed in at the House of Mouse.
The Little Mermaid is featured as a playable world in the Kingdom Hearts Series known as Atlantica. Characters from the film include, Ariel, Sebastian, Flounder, King Triton, Prince Eric, Ursula, Flotsam and Jetsam.

text: Live-action adaptation

text: In May 2016, Deadline Hollywood reported that Disney is in early development for a live-action version of the film.[76] Three months later, it was announced that Alan Menken would return as the film's composer and write new songs alongside Lin-Manuel Miranda, who will also co-produce the movie with Marc Platt.[77] Studio veteran Lindsay Lohan has expressed interest in starring in the adaption.[78][79] In December 2017, it was reported that Rob Marshall was Disney's top choice to direct the film with Jane Goldman to write the screenplay for the film.[80]


document_title: Goin' Out of My Head

question_text: who sang i think i'm going out of my head

question_tokens: who sang i think i 'm going out of my head

root

text: Goin' Out of My Head

text:
"Goin' Out of My Head"Song by Little Anthony & the ImperialsLanguage
EnglishReleased
1964Genre
PopLength
2:50Songwriter(s)
Teddy RandazzoBobby Weinstein

tag: table

text: "Goin' Out of My Head" is a song written by Teddy Randazzo and Bobby Weinstein, initially recorded by Little Anthony & the Imperials in 1964. Randazzo, a childhood friend of the group, wrote the song especially for them, having also supplied the group with their previous Top 20 Hit "I'm on the Outside (Looking In)".[1] Their original version of the song was a Billboard Top 10 Pop hit, reaching #6 on the Billboard Hot 100,[2] and #1 in the Canadian RPM-list in 1965. The song peaked at #8 on Cashbox magazine's R&B chart (Billboard was in a chart recess for R&B listings at that time). The Little Anthony & the Imperials original recording is the best-known version of the song, and the gold standard- although it's since been covered by many other artists.

tag: p

text: Credits: The Imperials[edit]

text:
"Little Anthony" Gourdine – Lead Vocals
Sammy Strain – First Tenor
Ernest Wright – Second Tenor
Clarence "Wah-Hoo" Collins – Baritone/Bass, Group Founder
Orchestra directed by Don Costa
Gary Chester - drums

tag: ul

text: Cover versions[edit]

text:
The Blossoms (with Fanita James singing lead), Shindig! – 1964
Dodie West (Decca UK 7" F12046) - UK Official Singles Chart #39 14-20th January 1965
Wes Montgomery – 1965[3]
Cilla Black – 1965
Petula Clark – 1965
Willie Bobo – 1965
Illinois Jacquet – 1965
Sergio Mendes (and Brazil '66) – 1966[4]
Billy May – 1966
Ella Fitzgerald – 1966
Harry James - 1966
Lou Christie – 1966
Chris Montez – 1966
The Zombies – 1966
Lynne Randell – 1966
Les McCann – 1967
Count Basie – 1967
The Lettermen – 1967 (As a medley with, "Can't Take My Eyes Off You," #7 on the Billboard Hot 100, 1968)
Laurindo Almeida - 1967
Los Hermanos Castro – 1967
Ramsey Lewis – 1968
Ray Conniff – 1968
Earl Grant – 1968

Hank Mobley – 1968
Gladys Knight & the Pips – 1968
Florence Ballard – 1968
Classics IV – 1968
The New Swing Sextet – 1968
Tony Mottola – 1968
Vic Damone – 1968
Shirley Bassey – 1968
Hep Stars Medley with Can't take my eyes of you live - 1968
Frank Sinatra – 1969
Santo & Johnny - 1969
Richard Hayman – 1969
Dionne Warwick – 1970
Anni-Frid Lyngstad – 1971 (Version with Swedish lyrics called "Jag blir galen när jag tänker på dej")
Harvey Averne – 1971
Floyd Cramer – 1971
Nora Aunor - 1973
Gloria Gaynor – 1978
Vikki Carr – 1982
Lawrence Welk – 1989
Pérez Prado – 1990
Julio Martini – 1991

Doc Severinsen – 1992
George Shearing – 1993
Les Baxter – 1993
Jack McDuff – 1993
The Lennon Sisters – 1994
Percy Faith & His Orchestra – 1995
Gerry Mulligan – 1995
Tito Puente – 1996
Luther Vandross – 1996
Tichina Arnold - 1997
Long John Baldry – 1998
Queen Latifah – 1998
Michele Lee – 1999
Dr. John – 1999
Diahann Carroll – 1999
Nancy Wilson – 1999
Alexandra Billings – 2000
Smokey Robinson & the Miracles – 2002
Al Martino – 2005
Trijntje Oosterhuis – 2006
The Delfonics – 2007
The 5th Dimension – 2007


document_title: Accuracy and precision

question_text: the level of mathematical precision of a variable is called

text: Accuracy and precision

text: Common definition[edit]

text: In the fields of science and engineering, the accuracy of a measurement system is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity to that quantity's true value.[1] The precision of a measurement system, related to reproducibility and repeatability, is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results.[1][2] Although the two words precision and accuracy can be synonymous in colloquial use, they are deliberately contrasted in the context of the scientific method.

text: Interestingly, the field of statistics, where the interpretation of measurements plays a central role, prefers to use the terms bias and variability instead of accuracy and precision: bias is the amount of inaccuracy and variability is the amount of imprecision.

text: A measurement system can be accurate but not precise, precise but not accurate, neither, or both. For example, if an experiment contains a systematic error, then increasing the sample size generally increases precision but does not improve accuracy. The result would be a consistent yet inaccurate string of results from the flawed experiment. Eliminating the systematic error improves accuracy but does not change precision.

text: A measurement system is considered valid if it is both accurate and precise. Related terms include bias (non-random or directed effects caused by a factor or factors unrelated to the independent variable) and error (random variability).

text: The terminology is also applied to indirect measurements—that is, values obtained by a computational procedure from observed data.

text: In addition to accuracy and precision, measurements may also have a measurement resolution, which is the smallest change in the underlying physical quantity that produces a response in the measurement.

text: In numerical analysis, accuracy is also the nearness of a calculation to the true value; while precision is the resolution of the representation, typically defined by the number of decimal or binary digits.

text: In military terms, accuracy refers primarily to the accuracy of fire (or "justesse de tir"), the precision of fire expressed by the closeness of a grouping of shots at and around the centre of the target.[3]

text: Quantification[edit]

text: In industrial instrumentation, accuracy is the measurement tolerance, or transmission of the instrument and defines the limits of the errors made when the instrument is used in normal operating conditions.[4]

text: Ideally a measurement device is both accurate and precise, with measurements all close to and tightly clustered around the true value. The accuracy and precision of a measurement process is usually established by repeatedly measuring some traceable reference standard. Such standards are defined in the International System of Units (abbreviated SI from French: Système international d'unités) and maintained by national standards organizations such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the United States.

text: This also applies when measurements are repeated and averaged. In that case, the term standard error is properly applied: the precision of the average is equal to the known standard deviation of the process divided by the square root of the number of measurements averaged. Further, the central limit theorem shows that the probability distribution of the averaged measurements will be closer to a normal distribution than that of individual measurements.

text: With regard to accuracy we can distinguish:

text:
the difference between the mean of the measurements and the reference value, the bias. Establishing and correcting for bias is necessary for calibration.
the combined effect of that and precision.

text: A common convention in science and engineering is to express accuracy and/or precision implicitly by means of significant figures. Here, when not explicitly stated, the margin of error is understood to be one-half the value of the last significant place. For instance, a recording of 843.6 m, or 843.0 m, or 800.0 m would imply a margin of 0.05 m (the last significant place is the tenths place), while a recording of 8436 m would imply a margin of error of 0.5 m (the last significant digits are the units).

text: A reading of 8,000 m, with trailing zeroes and no decimal point, is ambiguous; the trailing zeroes may or may not be intended as significant figures. To avoid this ambiguity, the number could be represented in scientific notation: 8.0 × 103 m indicates that the first zero is significant (hence a margin of 50 m) while 8.000 × 103 m indicates that all three zeroes are significant, giving a margin of 0.5 m. Similarly, it is possible to use a multiple of the basic measurement unit: 8.0 km is equivalent to 8.0 × 103 m. In fact, it indicates a margin of 0.05 km (50 m). However, reliance on this convention can lead to false precision errors when accepting data from sources that do not obey it.[citation needed]

text: Precision includes:

text:
repeatability — the variation arising when all efforts are made to keep conditions constant by using the same instrument and operator, and repeating during a short time period; and
reproducibility — the variation arising using the same measurement process among different instruments and operators, and over longer time periods.

text: ISO definition (ISO 5725)[edit]

text: A shift in the meaning of these terms appeared with the publication of the ISO 5725 series of standards in 1994, which is also reflected in the 2008 issue of the "BIPM International Vocabulary of Metrology" (VIM), items 2.13 and 2.14.[1]

text: According to ISO 5725-1,[5] the general term "accuracy" is used to describe the closeness of a measurement to the true value. When the term is applied to sets of measurements of the same measurand, it involves a component of random error and a component of systematic error. In this case trueness is the closeness of the mean of a set of measurement results to the actual (true) value and precision is the closeness of agreement among a set of results.

text: ISO 5725-1 and VIM also avoid the use of the term "bias", previously specified in BS 5497-1,[6] because it has different connotations outside the fields of science and engineering, as in medicine and law.

text:
Accuracy of a target grouping according to BIPM and ISO 5725

Low accuracy, poor precision, good trueness

Low accuracy, good precision, poor trueness

text: In binary classification[edit]

text: Accuracy is also used as a statistical measure of how well a binary classification test correctly identifies or excludes a condition. That is, the accuracy is the proportion of true results (both true positives and true negatives) among the total number of cases examined.[7] To make the context clear by the semantics, it is often referred to as the "Rand accuracy" or "Rand index".[8][9][10] It is a parameter of the test.

text: In psychometrics and psychophysics[edit]

text: In psychometrics and psychophysics, the term accuracy is interchangeably used with validity and constant error. Precision is a synonym for reliability and variable error. The validity of a measurement instrument or psychological test is established through experiment or correlation with behavior. Reliability is established with a variety of statistical techniques, classically through an internal consistency test like Cronbach's alpha to ensure sets of related questions have related responses, and then comparison of those related question between reference and target population.[citation needed]

text: In logic simulation[edit]

text: In logic simulation, a common mistake in evaluation of accurate models is to compare a logic simulation model to a transistor circuit simulation model. This is a comparison of differences in precision, not accuracy. Precision is measured with respect to detail and accuracy is measured with respect to reality.[11][12]

text: In information systems[edit]

text: This section may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help us clarify the section. There might be a discussion about this on the talk page. (March 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: The concepts of accuracy and precision have also been studied in the context of databases, information systems and their sociotechnical context. The necessary extension of these two concepts on the basis of theory of science suggests that they (as well as data quality and information quality) should be centered on accuracy defined as the closeness to the true value seen as the degree of agreement of readings or of calculated values of one same conceived entity, measured or calculated by different methods, in the context of maximum possible disagreement.[13]


document_title: Duty of care

question_text: what does the obligation to satisfy the standard of care mean for engineers

text: Duty of care

text: Development of the general duty of care[edit]

text: At common law, duties were formerly limited to those with whom one was in privity one way or another, as exemplified by cases like Winterbottom v. Wright (1842). In the early 20th century, judges began to recognize that the cold realities of the Second Industrial Revolution (in which end users were frequently several parties removed from the original manufacturer) implied that enforcing the privity requirement against hapless consumers had harsh results in many product liability cases. The idea of a general duty of care that runs to all who could be foreseeably affected by one's conduct (accompanied by the demolishing of the privity barrier) first appeared in the judgment of William Brett (later Lord Esher), Master of the Rolls, in Heaven v Pender (1883). Although Brett's formulation was rejected by the rest of the court, similar formulations later appeared in the landmark U.S. case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916) and, in the UK, in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). Both MacPherson and Donoghue were product liability cases, and both expressly acknowledged and cited Brett's analysis as their inspiration.

text: Scope[edit]

text: Although the duty of care is easiest to understand in contexts like simple blunt trauma, it is important to understand that a duty can be still found in situations where plaintiffs and defendants may be separated by vast distances of space and time.

text: For instance, an engineer or construction company involved in erecting a building may be reasonably responsible to tenants inhabiting the building many years in the future. This point is illustrated by the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court in Terlinde v. Neely 275 S.C. 395, 271 S.E.2d 768 (1980), later cited by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co. [1995] 1 S.C.R. 85:

text: The plaintiffs, being a member of the class for which the home was constructed, are entitled to a duty of care in construction commensurate with industry standards. In the light of the fact that the home was constructed as speculative, the home builder cannot reasonably argue he envisioned anything but a class of purchasers. By placing this product into the stream of commerce, the builder owes a duty of care to those who will use his product, so as to render him accountable for negligent workmanship.

text: Responsibility[edit]

text: Although the idea of a general duty of care is now widely accepted, there are significant differences among the common law jurisdictions concerning the specific circumstances under which that duty of care exists. Obviously, courts cannot impose unlimited liability and hold everyone liable for everyone else's problems; as Justice Cardozo put it, to rule otherwise would be to expose defendants "to a liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class."[1] There must be some reasonable limit to the duty of care; the problem is where to set that limit.

text: England[edit]

text: The leading judicial test for a duty of care in England was found in the judgments of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman,[2] in which the House of Lords set out the following three-part test:

text:
Harm must be a "reasonably foreseeable" result of the defendant's conduct;[3][4][5]
A relationship of "proximity" must exist between the defendant and the claimant;
It must be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose liability.

text: Australia[edit]

text: The High Court of Australia has deviated from the British approach, which still recognises a proximity element. Rather, Australian law first determines whether the case at hand fits within an established category of case where a duty of care has been found.[6] For example, occupiers of a premises automatically owe a duty of care to any person on their premises.[7]

text: If this is not the case, then the plaintiff must prove that it was reasonably foreseeable that harm could result from the defendant's actions. If so, the Court then applies a 'salient features' test to determine whether the plaintiff is owed a duty of care.[6] Some of the salient features which the Court considers in making this inquiry include:

text:
Whether imposition of a duty of care would lead to 'indeterminate liability' – that is, it would interfere with the legitimate protection or pursuit of an individual's social or business interests.[8]
Whether imposition of a duty would constitute an unreasonable burden on individual autonomy.[9]
The degree of vulnerability of the plaintiff to the defendant's actions – their ability to guard against the harm.[10]
The degree of knowledge which the defendant had about the probability and likely magnitude of harm to the plaintiff.[11]

tag: ol

text: Special rules exist for the establishment of duty of care where the plaintiff suffered mental harm, or where the defendant is a public authority.[12]

text: To establish a duty of care, the plaintiff has to satisfy the requirement of CLA Act ss 27-33. In light of this, a large number of individuals cannot claim injuries as well. Meanwhile, compared to the ‘No-Fault Compensation’ system in New Zealand, the cost to claim injuries is much higher. In light of this, individuals especially the victims who lack knowledge or capability may choose not claim private nuisance after balancing the burden and outcomes. This view affirmed by Regina Graycar, he states that the courts in Australia are reluctant to award damages for personal injuries.[13]

text: In New South Wales, a plaintiff is able to recover for non-economic loss, including pain and suffering, loss of amenities/expectation of life and disfigurement, upon the severity of the loss being at least 15% of 'most extreme case'.[14] As of October 2016, NSW Attorney General, Gabrielle Upton, has updated the maximum amount of damages for non-economic loss from $594,000 to $605,000.[15]

text: France[edit]

text: On 27 March 2017, the French National Assembly adopted a law entitled “Devoir de vigilance des entreprises donneuses d'ordre”, [16] whose title has been translated into English as a "duty of vigilance" or "duty of care".[17]

text: The law will oblige large French companies (companies with at least 5,000 staff in France or 10,000 staff within their combined French and foreign offices over two consecutive years) [18] to:

text: United States[edit]

text: Because each of the 50 U.S. states is a separate sovereign free to develop its own tort law under the Tenth Amendment, there are several tests for finding a duty of care in United States tort law.

text: Foreseeability test[edit]

text: In several states, like Florida and Massachusetts, the only test is whether the harm to the plaintiff from the defendant's actions was foreseeable.[20][21]

text: The Supreme Court of California, in a famous majority opinion by Justice David Eagleson, sharply criticized the idea that foreseeability, standing alone, constitutes an adequate basis on which to rest the duty of care: "Experience has shown that . . . there are clear judicial days on which a court can foresee forever and thus determine liability but none on which that foresight alone provides a socially and judicially acceptable limit on recovery of damages."[22]

text: Multi-factor test[edit]

text: Drawing upon the work of scholars such as Fowler V. Harper, Fleming James Jr., and William Prosser, California has developed a complex balancing test consisting of multiple factors which must be carefully weighed against one another to determine whether a duty of care exists in a negligence action.

text: California Civil Code section 1714 imposes a general duty of ordinary care, which by default requires all persons to take reasonable measures to prevent harm to others.[23] In the 1968 case of Rowland v. Christian, the court held that judicial exceptions to this general duty of care should only be created if clearly justified based on the following public-policy factors:

text:
the foreseeability of harm to the injured party;
the degree of certainty he or she suffered injury;
the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered;
the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct;
the policy of preventing future harm;
the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty of care with resulting liability for breach;
and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.[24]

text: A 1997 case added to this:

text: the social utility of the defendant's conduct from which the injury arose.[25]

text: Contemporary California appellate decisions treat the Rowland decision as the "gold standard" for determining the existence of a legal duty of care, and generally refer to the criteria for determining the existence of a legal duty of care as the Rowland factors.[26]

text: In California, the duty inquiry focuses on the general category of conduct at issue and the range of foreseeable harm it creates, rather than the specific actions or injuries in each case.[27] Appellate lawyer Jeffrey Ehrlich persuaded the California Supreme Court to clarify the central importance of this distinction with its 2011 decision in Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co. which requires "no duty" rulings to be based on categorical public-policy rules that can be applied to a range of cases, without reference to detailed facts.[28] By requiring courts to apply the Rowland factors at this high level of factual generality, the Cabral decision preserved the role of juries in determining whether the defendant breached its duty of care based on the unique circumstances of each case.[23]

text: After the Rowland decision, the "overwhelming majority" of states eventually chose to follow California's lead and adopted some kind of multi-factor analysis based on the work of Prosser and others.[29] Some states simply copied California's factors but modified them, like Michigan (which deleted the insurance factor and never picked up the social utility factor),[30] while others developed different lists of factors, such as this one from Tennessee:

text:
the foreseeability of the harm or injury;
the possible magnitude of the potential harm or injury;
the importance or social value of the activity engaged in by the defendant;
the usefulness of the conduct to the defendant;
the feasibility of alternative conduct;
the costs and burdens associated with the alternative conduct;
the relative usefulness of the alternative conduct;
and the relative safety of the alternative conduct.[31]

text: A 2011 law review article identified 43 states that use a multifactor analysis in 23 various incarnations; consolidating them together results in a list of 42 different factors used by U.S. courts to determine whether a duty of care exists.[32]

text: The Tennessee Court of Appeal has also recently followed the California Supreme Court's lead by citing Cabral for the proposition that duty determinations must be made at the highest level of factual generality.[33]

text: Measurement[edit]

text: Once a duty exists, the plaintiff must show that the defendant breached it. This is generally treated as the second element of negligence in the United States. Breach involves testing the defendant's actions against the standard of a reasonable person, which varies depending on the facts of the case. For example, physicians will be held to reasonable standards for members of their profession, rather than those of the general public, in negligence actions for medical malpractice.

text: In turn, once the appropriate standard has been found, the breach is proven when the plaintiff shows that the defendant's conduct fell below or did not reach the relevant standard of reasonable care.[34]

text: However, it is possible that the defendant took every possible precaution and exceeded what would have been done by any reasonable person, yet the plaintiff was injured. If that is the case, then as a matter of law, the duty of care has not been breached and the plaintiff cannot recover in negligence.[35][36] This is the key difference between negligence and strict liability; if strict liability attaches to the defendant's conduct, then the plaintiff can recover under that theory regardless of whatever precautions were taken by the defendant.

text: Examples[edit]

text: Products[edit]

text: Product liability was the context in which the general duty of care first developed. Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers who ultimately purchase and use the products. In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 of the House of Lords, Lord Atkin stated:

text: My Lords, if your Lordships accept the view that this pleading discloses a relevant cause of action you will be affirming the proposition that by Scots and English law alike a manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer's life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care.

text: Land[edit]

text: At common law, in the case of landowners, the extent of their duty of care to those who came on their premises varied depending on whether a person was classified as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. This rule was eventually abolished in some common law jurisdictions. For example, England enacted the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Similarly, in the 1968 landmark case of Rowland v. Christian,[24] the Supreme Court of California replaced the old classifications with a general duty of care to all persons on one's land, regardless of their status. After several highly publicized and controversial cases, the California Legislature enacted a statute in 1985 that partially restored immunity to landowners from some types of lawsuits from trespassers.[37]

text: Colorado's highest court adopted the Rowland unified duty of care analysis in 1971. The resulting explosion of lawsuits against Colorado landowners caused the state legislature to enact the Colorado Premises Liability Act in 1986, which enacted a cleaned-up statutory version of the common law classifications and simultaneously expressly displaced all common law remedies against landowners in order to prevent state courts from again expanding their liability.

text: In the Republic of Ireland, under the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1995, the duty of care to trespassers, visitors and "recreational users" can be restricted by the occupier; provided reasonable notice is given, for which a prominent notice at the usual entrance to the premises usually suffices.[38]

text: Business[edit]

text: In business, "the duty of care addresses the attentiveness and prudence of managers in performing their decision-making and supervisory functions."[39] The "business judgment rule presumes that directors (and officers) carry out their functions in good faith, after sufficient investigation, and for acceptable reasons. Unless this presumption is overcome, courts abstain from second-guessing well-meaning business decisions even when they are flops. This is a risk that shareholders take when they make a corporate investment."[39]